11 May 2013

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer had erred in invoking provision of section 50C of the I.T. Act thereby computing the long term capital gain at Rs. 74,15,381/-. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is al

10 May 2013

However at the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was passed over twice. Despite the same, neither the assessee was present nor any request for adjournment has been placed before the Bench. The record shows that

09 May 2013

Brief facts of the case are that assessee was running a proprietary business as whole seller at Nainital. It had filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,90,000/-. The Assessing Officer, vide order sheet entry dated 19th August, 200

08 May 2013

The assessee has raised various grounds in its appeal. However, at the time of hearing before us, the main contention of the learned counsel for the assessee was for setting aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). He subm

07 May 2013

On the facts and circumstances of the case the ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,26,248/- made on account of jewellery by ignoring that no investment in jewellery was disclosed and no wealth tax return was filed. On the facts and circu

06 May 2013

However, at the time of hearing before us, it was pointed out by the learned counsel that the learned CIT(A) had allowed only part relief and, therefore, against the addition sustained at `3,45,914/-, the assessee had filed appeal before the ITAT. Th

04 May 2013

We draw the attention of the ld. DR regarding the tax effect on the deletion of addition of Rs.9,05,643/- which is less than Rs. 3.00 lakh. This position is admitted by the ld. D.R. Therefore, as per the Instruction No. 3/2011 dated 09.02.2011 the re

03 May 2013

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs.4,070302/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of car maintenance expenses.”

02 May 2013

The appeal was fixed for hearing on 21.11.2011 when the case was adjourned at the request of the assessee’s counsel to 22.03.2012. Thereafter, the Bench did not function and the hearing was fixed on 25.07.2012. On 25.07.2012, the matter was adjourned

01 May 2013

At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the assessee argued at length. He stated that there was search at Chaurasia Group of cases. However, there was no search operation at the premises of the assessee company. The Assessing Office

30 April 2013

The genesis of the case of the prosecution was that one Shama Parveen was living in House No.A-32/15, Main Road No.66, Maujpur, that while she was using the first floor as her residential premises she had her own shop in the ground floor where she wa

27 April 2013

The facts necessary for the purpose of appreciating the controversy involved in the appeal are as follows:
The Bangalore Club (hereinafter referred to as the “assessee”), the appellant herein, is an unincorporated Association of Persons, (AOP). I

26 April 2013

The respondent-assessee is a firm which came into existence on 25th June, 1992. On 23rd February, 1996, a search operation under Section 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of another concern, viz. M/s A.R. Mercantile Private Limited. Duri

25 April 2013

The assessee is a public limited company, classified by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as a non-banking finance company. It is engaged in the business of hire purchase, leasing and real estate etc. The vehicles, on which depreciation was claimed, ar

24 April 2013

The appellant herein, Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as `the insurer’), is a government company, which is in the business of insuring exporters. Respondent, M/s Garg Sons International, on 23.3.1995 purcha

23 April 2013

The appellant, an Export Oriented Unit (for short “EOU”), is engaged in the manufacture of all wool and poly-wool worsted grey fabrics. It was granted the status of EOU by the Government of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Develo

22 April 2013

The facts very briefly are that the appellant-bank sanctioned Derivatives/Forward Contracts facility to respondent no.1 upto a limit of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (rupees two crores) only for the purpose of hedging foreign currency exposures by its letter date

13 April 2013

Briefly stated, the material facts giving rise to the appeal, are as follows: Pursuant to an inspection by the officials of the enforcement Commissionerate, Chennai-II at the sales outlet of the respondent (hereinafter referred as “the assessee”), re

24 January 2013

Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules, 1963 and following various decisions of the Tribunal including in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case

23 January 2013

The revenue has questioned the first appellate order on the following grounds:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.21,63,393/- being the amount receivable from M/s Adk